I bought my E-M5 kit for full price soon after it was released because I'm a gadget geek and wanted an interchangeable lens camera to photograph my first born. It took some time to discover the world of non-kit lenses and bokeh. That opened the door to buying fast m4/3 primes with great auto focus. Then came the DRTV videos. The allure of full frame bokeh. And the general impression from Kai Wong that a 5Diii is pretty portable and can easily be toted around with one hand. It fed my dissatisfaction with E-M5 since I always felt that the E-M5 wasn't as portable as it could be, especially with anything other than the 17mm f1.8 or 20mm f1.7. Definitely not so much with the hand grip, or the 12-40mm f2.8. So why not try out a FF DSLR and see how it goes?

Well, I bought a used 5Diii instead of an imported D750, picked up a sweet Sigma 50mm f1.4 and went to town!

No Like:
1. The 5Diii + Sigma 50 is a monster to hold. It's ENORMOUS. And it's not even the biggest 50mm out there! The Canon 50/1.4 and the Sigma ART are both even bigger and heavier! Often I find myself cradling the beast like a newborn baby just to get my keys out of my pocket! No like.
2. Razor thin DOF is over rated. In fact I find it really distracting now. I can't stand shooting with the Sigma wide open. It has noticeable glow wide open, and I generally have to shoot between f2.8 and f4 just to get my subjects in focus. No like.
3. Stopping down the aperture often means boosting ISO. No likey. Kinda. But in reality the 5D's noise is acceptable up to 10,000. Whereas I on the E-M5 I shoot 6400 only when I'm desperate.
4. The ISO thing wouldn't be so much of an issue if i didn't have to keep my shutter speeds above 1/125 or 1/160 to get a sharp image. Either I have shakey hands, bad mirror slap, or I've just become spoiled with 5-Axis IBIS. No likey.
5. AF. While AF is quick and C-AF is leaps and bounds better than the E-M5, because of the shallow DOF, I find myself obsessively refocusing before every shutter release. It may not really be necessary, and my confidence may improve with use, but right now it's psychologically burdensome.
6. Strobes. Stopping down the aperture for DOF means boosting your strobe power. no like. I've also been spoiled by the Olympus RC Flash control.

Like:
1. The OVF. No delay. No prolonged blackout. Continuous shooting is great. The EVF blackout on the E-M5 is really annoying. I hate the idea of upgrading the body just to get a better EVF.
2. I was expecting skin tones to be captured and rendered much more beautifully on the FF sensor than the m4/3 sensor. And to a degree, it is. In the shadowy areas, the FF sensor produces much smoother light fall off in the shadows. But in the highlights, not so much. A lot of the "smoother" skin I envied in other peoples' work was really just a result of over zealous noise reduction, which you can impose on a m4/3 RAW too.
3. Adapted lenses are much more compact on the 5D than the EM5 because of the flange distance. OM mount lenses on the 5D are super compact. Love this. OM mount lenses on the EM5 look like ungainly protrusions.

Here are some comparisons. See if you can tell which is which. In the meantime, I'm open to hearing reasons why I should keep the 5D.

Well, I ditched my 5dii to go to an E-M5 (and later an E-M1). All your pros and cons are exactly what I found too. Personally, the pros far outweigh the cons, so I've absolutely no intentions of going back to Canon FF gear!

Of the first two images, unless you've played with aperture to confuse us wink, then the second shot is the Oly, first is Canon. Apart from DOF issue, at this size they're indistinguishable (which is exactly what I'd expect at web sizes).

Your post is just what I needed to read. I've been wanting a FF camera lately. I've not had one since my film days and with the low noise at high ISOs I see from FF, I am very tempted. Also, I miss certain things about an OVF. However, I get frustrated enough if exactly what I want in focus isn't in focus and I think it would only be worse for me with FF. Plus, while some issues do bother me about an EVF, there are things I really like about it. And the lenses that really tempt me for a FF camera would set me back quite a bit. When people complain about the cost of m4/3 lenses, I wonder if they have priced top shelf Canon or Nikon lenses.

3. Adapted lenses are much more compact on the 5D than the EM5 because of the flange distance. OM mount lenses on the 5D are super compact. Love this. OM mount lenses on the EM5 look like ungainly protrusions.

Click to expand...

of course the standoff required to suite flange distance makes lenses less than 50mm sortof pointless on the m43 now that we have such good native fixed focal lengths (that 14, 20, 25 and 45mm simply weren't there in 2009) of course this varies depending if you are using leica M mount lenses or OM lenses (which have huge focal flange distances).

I went OM after starting on FD for exactly the reason that it would work on EOS ... but now I've mostly lost 99% of my interest in a 5D as I have become comfortable with knowing that the FF provides me (in what I do) very little.

In the meantime, I'm open to hearing reasons why I should keep the 5D.

Click to expand...

Do you ever shoot in low light? Do you need the resolution / do you ever print large? Do you ever shoot in situations that you need the ergonomics of the 5D? Do you even like the ergonomics of the 5D? Do you have a thing for canon glass?

If you didn't answer "yes" to any of these, why did you get a 5D?

The 5DIII is a little "behind" on sensor tech compared to your other major FF options (Sony, Nikon), the biggest thing that I notice (apart from resolution) when comparing my EM1 and my A7r, but that I don't see in your "Pro's" list is dynamic range. You can pull a lot more out of the A7r/D800's shadows, highlights and overall exposure. I'm not sure exactly how the 5D compares, but I don't think it's favorable.

Do you ever shoot in low light? Do you need the resolution / do you ever print large? Do you ever shoot in situations that you need the ergonomics of the 5D? Do you even like the ergonomics of the 5D? Do you have a thing for canon glass? If you didn't answer "yes" to any of these, why did you get a 5D? The 5DIII is a little "behind" on sensor tech compared to your other major FF options (Sony, Nikon), the biggest thing that I notice (apart from resolution) when comparing my EM1 and my A7r, but that I don't see in your "Pro's" list is dynamic range. You can pull a lot more out of the A7r/D800's shadows, highlights and overall exposure. I'm not sure exactly how the 5D compares, but I don't think it's favorable.

Click to expand...

ah, great points.
yes, I do shoot in low light sometimes. in fact one of my first major tests of dynamic range and low light performance was at a bowling alley with club lights.

I found that in general, the older 5Diii sensor provides more in the shadows for recovery while the EM5 gives you more in the highlights. I found the total range was pretty close, it just affected more how you expose. I was hoping PDAF in the 5D to kill it in the low light AF performance, after reading that it out performed the D750 which advertises AF down to -3EV. But in fact, it struggled and even when it did confirm focus, the OVF was so dark I could hardly tell with my own eyes. (and my night vision is really pretty good). I really wished I had an EVF.

in fact shooting FF in low light, means shooting wide open, with thin DOF, and a dark OVF. so confidence in nailing focus really plummets... at least until I gain confidence in the AF system.

I went with the 5D expecting the ergonomics to be better than the EM5 since it has dedicated buttons for WB, AF, Drive, Metering, ISO. They're instantaneously responsive and while I'm still memorizing their assignments, I still find myself missing the Super Control Panel on the EM5.

I researched EF glass and concluded that anything with a max aperture lower than f1.8 (like L glass) is mostly useless from softness/glow, CA. so you spend >$1K while almost always stopping down to f1.8 or smaller. So I concluded all I wanted was the Canon 50/1.8 or Sigma 50/1.4, and Canon 85/1.8. all of which cost less about $300 used. Better than Nikon options. But not necessarily better than Olympus options.

It seems to me that if you have any desire to have an FF system you should consider getting rid of that thing and getting a Sony Alpha... Considerably better EVF than the EM5, considerably better sensor than the 5D and EM5, a size that you're used to. The Zeiss 55mm f/1.8 is a gem. and the Sony 85mm f/2.8 is surprisingly decent.

I wasn't too enamored with the A7's handling, build and shutter clack. They also don't seem to have many affordable FF lens options. I'm sure the system will continue to mature. But the way it stands right now, I'm not too interested.

Also, as for resolution and large prints, the 5Diii produces 5760x3840 while the EM5 produces 4640x3472. That's less than 400 vertical pixels. I haven't had any issue printing EM5 shots at 11"x14".

I researched EF glass and concluded that anything with a max aperture lower than f1.8 (like L glass) is mostly useless from softness/glow, CA. so you spend >$1K while almost always stopping down to f1.8 or smaller. So I concluded all I wanted was the Canon 50/1.8 or Sigma 50/1.4, and Canon 85/1.8. all of which cost less about $300 used. Better than Nikon options. But not necessarily better than Olympus options.

Click to expand...

Interestingly is is about where I ended up, feeling that between 35mm to about 100mm that was the only place where full frame did it for me. I borrowed a 5D for a while and realised at in truth I may as well just use negative on my OM1 or my EOS630 film cameras for the amount of times I use it. Besides negative has some cards up its sleeve when lighting is harsh.

It I was doing theater work I'd probably still use 43 as the telephoto advantage is higher.

I also find the 5D to be a brick in comparison with my film EOS (which does 5fps motor drive and has been a champ over many miles of film)

I shoot with a Canon 5D Mk.II as well as a Olympus EM1 among other cameras. The Canon and Olympus are two completely different beasts and are for different shooters and/or different scenarios. Sure, the Canon is bigger and heavier but it also has it's advantages, as does m43 and mirrorless in general.

It seems to me that you need more time with the Canon to get familiar with it before coming to any conclusions. I came from the DSLR world into mirrorless (Olympus and Fuji) and it took some time to get used to these cameras.

Just as a FYI, my daily camera bag houses my OMD EM1, Fuji X100 and Ricoh GRD3 along with my Oly 25/1.8 and 45/1.8. I don't carry around my Canon 5D Mk.II on a daily basis due to size and weight. Most of what I shoot these days are street, candids, travel and some cityscapes and architecture.

The times that I do take my Canon are photo outings where I specifically want to use the Canon. Where the Canon excels over the Olympus, at least IMO and for my needs, are in better high ISO performance, better dynamic range and sheer resolution.

If I were printing large prints on a regular basis, I'd be using a full frame DSLR and/or medium format. For web usage and shooting below ISO 3200, DSLRs are overkill IMO.

Here's an impromptu portrait of Ambassador Kim and family with Senator McCain and Senator Whitehouse that I shot in 2013. Because this wasn't a planned photo op, I didn't have flashes on hand and it was shot just with my Canon at ISO 6400 at 1/50. Had I been using a m43 camera, I'm not sure I could have pulled it off.

Just as a FYI, my daily camera bag houses my OMD EM1, Fuji X100 and Ricoh GRD3 along with my Oly 25/1.8 and 45/1.8. I don't carry around my Canon 5D Mk.II on a daily basis due to size and weight. Most of what I shoot these days are street, candids, travel and some cityscapes and architecture.

The times that I do take my Canon are photo outings where I specifically want to use the Canon. Where the Canon excels over the Olympus, at least IMO and for my needs, are in better high ISO performance, better dynamic range and sheer resolution.

If I were printing large prints on a regular basis, I'd be using a full frame DSLR and/or medium format. For web usage and shooting below ISO 3200, DSLRs are overkill IMO.

Here's an impromptu portrait of Ambassador Kim and family with Senator McCain and Senator Whitehouse that I shot in 2013. Because this wasn't a planned photo op, I didn't have flashes on hand and it was shot just with my Canon at ISO 6400 at 1/50. Had I been using a m43 camera, I'm not sure I could have pulled it off.

To reproduce the first image with Olympus, you would shoot with 25mm lens at f2 and ISO 3200 which should be comparable.

Click to expand...

You're almost correct, except ISO would be 1600 instead of 3200 (the 2-stops you gain in aperture would reduce the ISO by 2 stops, taking you from 6400 down to 1600). Either way, the shot could have easily been done with the E-M1, which still delivers very good IQ pertaining to noise at ISO 1600.

Links in this page may be to our affiliates. Sales through affiliate links may benefit this site. We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.